I’ve often wondered that myself. This week, the former President will accept an award for his advancement of pro-life causes, and yet, there is something no right about that. John Gehring takes a look as Bush’s record and asks the same question.
I believe he is correct when he says that neither political party could actually be considered pro-life:
Neither political party can truly claim the “pro-life” mantle. In general, Democrats perform better when it comes to anti-poverty initiatives and protecting vital social safety nets, but often don’t grapple seriously enough with the reality of over one million abortions performed a year. Many Republicans trumpet their pro-life bona fides, yet fail to back up their rhetoric by fighting for robust social policies that help pregnant women and vulnerable families. Despite intense lobbying from the Catholic Health Association and other faith-based organizations, Bush twice vetoed legislative efforts to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which helps states provide health insurance to children from low-income and working families. Sr. Carol Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Health Association and a respected lobbyist on Capitol Hill, recently described SCHIP as “clearly a pro-life program.” President Obama reauthorized the program last year, and it’s now on track to provide more than 14 million children quality health care.
Why is it then that the GOP has that mantle automatically assumed, although their are Republican leaders which are visibly pro-choice – if that is our only measuring stick. Of course, Democrats have the rare exceptions like Bart Stupak.
Read the article, please:
But, what do you think it means to be pro-life?