_____Opinion___________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
And Jesus
said, “Who touched me?”
A leading activist gives voice
to the concerns of many American pro-lifers who would like to see
more resolute signs of commitment from the Bush administration and the
Republican Party.
By Judie Brown
A frequent topic of discussion in American pro-life circles is the question of exactly how pro-life President George W. Bush really is.
We know that the President says a lot of nice things, and he even spoke to the throngs who came from across the nation to witness to personhood at the recent March for Life. The President said, among other things:
Everyone there believes, as I do, that every life is valuable; that our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and weak, the imperfect and even the unwanted; and that our nation should set a great goal that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law.
But what precisely has the President done to make sure that every human being is welcome in our society and protected by the law? He has said and done a great many things that leave us wondering why so many Americans hold so fiercely to the conviction that their President is staunchly pro-life. Let’s look at the record.
On August 9, 2001, President Bush told a national television audience that in vitro fertilization is a “process . . . which helps so many couples conceive children.” Bush failed to mention that during this process countless numbers of little boys and girls are willfully destroyed —used as though they were experimental material, or frozen for later use.
Early indicators
If anyone honestly thinks about his words, the result can only be to wonder as
to exactly how “pro-life” the sitting President really is. To figure that out,
perhaps we should begin our examination of George W. Bush’s record just prior to
his being sworn in as the 43rd President of the United States of America.
The first clue came two days prior to his inauguration, when his wife, Laura Bush, told an interviewer on the “Today Show” that she does not think the Roe v. Wade decision should be overturned. In fact she went on to agree that she and Hillary Clinton have the same view of Roe v. Wade. And then she made the most chilling statement of the day, “I would say, in general, George and I are on the same page on the issue.”
Within a few days after that television program was broadcast, President Bush sent a message to the March for Life. It was 2001, and he expressed his goal that “every child is welcomed in life and protected by law.” The applause was deafening that year, as it was when the President addressed the March again this year. How badly pro-lifers yearned for a President who would affirm human dignity at conception, and work to have that fact confirmed in law! How desperate pro-lifers were to see the actions of a man many had said was so much better than Albert Gore, who some likened to Satan himself. How anxious some were to say, “I told you so. See, Bush is really pro-life after all.” But the truth is in the facts, not the words.
Shortly after taking office, Bush issued an executive order that restored the “Mexico City” policy. While many hoots and hollers were heard, some of us wondered “why so little, Mr. President?” After all, Bill Clinton had taken a huge bite out of pro-life progress when he took office; this initial step by President Bush was not nearly so dramatic. Within days of his January 1993 inauguration, Clinton had overturned the so-called “gag rule” that prohibited workers at federally funded clinics from counseling, advising, or providing information about abortion. He overturned the ban on federal funding for fetal tissue research and the “Mexico City” policy, which prohibited foreign non-governmental organizations from providing abortion and referral services. Clinton also directed the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the testing and licensing of RU-486, the “abortion pill.”
And within days after President Bush issued his executive order, his new Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Tommy Thompson, was backpedaling on the abortion pill, RU-486, saying that no complaints had come to his desk arguing that the pill was unsafe. He determined that nothing needed to be done to investigate the approval of the drug under the Clinton administration, through what many analysts had argued was a politically motivated process.
The stem cell decision
In March of 2001 it was reported that the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
would begin issuing federal grant applications to scientists who wished to do
embryonic stem-cell experiments. While the President said that he did not
support such research, it became clear that a stall tactic would be put in place
to delay a White House executive order. Rather than making a clear and
unequivocal statement opposing all such research as destructive and deadly, a
HHS “review of the policy” was put into motion. At the time the review was
announced, no hold was put on the issuance of NIH grant applications; the
process moved forward.
In May of 2001 Bush had named two Clinton nominees among his first judicial selections. In choosing Barrington D. Parker Jr. for the 2nd circuit in New York and Roger Gregory for the 4th circuit in Virginia, Bush sent a message that his brand of “compassionate conservatism” contained a mix of ideologies that would do anything but enhance the struggle to restore the legal rights of personhood to human beings whose lives begin at conception. While it was a fact, uttered by his own staff, that Bush would not use “abortion as a litmus test,” no one really thought he would go so far as to nominate individuals who clearly embraced a philosophy directly opposed to Bush’s words.
So by the time that nationally televised August 9 address on destroying human embryonic people took place, some had predicted that like Solomon before him, Bush would make an effort to appease his “conservative pro-life friends” with language that would not, at the same time, truly upset the other half of his diverse collection of collaborators. And that is precisely what he did. The President did not address the fact that privately funded researchers and laboratories are engaged in killing people when they destroy human embryos to remove their stem cells. He preferred to say that no federal funds would be used for that purpose, but that the government would be happy to use the results of the private sector’s dirty work.
Of this black day in history, Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, said:
We expected [Bush] to put all of our resources into ethical stem cell experiments using adult cells and cells from umbilical cord blood, placentas, and human fat. We expected those things because he said he wanted to rebuild a culture of life.
Instead, he is pushing us further down the slippery slope and over the edge into a free fall toward a world we don’t want for our children and grandchildren—a world we will not recognize.
Recognizing the unborn child
The free fall continues even now. While the Bush Administration touts a decision
to use the words “unborn child” in health insurance programs for expectant
mothers who choose to carry their babies instead of kill them by abortion, the
same administration continues to turn a blind eye toward chemical abortion,
government support of Planned Parenthood and its allies, and the principle of
personhood that requires protection for every human being from conception.
Words, you see are cheap. They are the currency of a political system that has little to do with moral absolutes but a great deal to do with deception, and rhetorical gymnastics executed with the precision of an Olympian. And the crowd goes wild. It is as though far too many pro-life Americans sit by the side of the dinner table, tongues dragging on the ground, begging the man who sits in the White House for a crumb. And when that crumb falls to the ground—nearly dissipated before it reaches the intended millions of potential campaign workers—the gang applauds, having been numbed by the conflict that has cost them so dearly and buried so many babies.
These people are pro-lifers with good intentions, every one; but barely able to see that the emperor has no clothes, or afraid to admit it if they do. For the most part, they do not demand principle; nobody expects a politician to utter the words “human beings are persons at the moment of conception,” and (almost) nobody holds elected official accountable for empty words, broken promises, and, sadly, discarded innocent lives. Demanding truth is politically incorrect.
Which brings me to the title of this article: And Jesus said, “Who touched me?” For nearly 22 years it has been said that the Republican Party is a pro-life party, capable of delivering the preborn into a safety net that will protect them in law and in the culture. Such a continuing guarantee of victory puts the American pro-life movement in a position not unlike that of the woman in the 5th chapter of the Gospel of St. Mark—who, having hemorrhaged for 12 years, exhausted her savings, and been falsely assured by numerous doctors that they could cure her, at last crawled toward the Christ about whom she had heard so much. She had nothing to lose. She had suffered painful treatments and come away unchanged, if not worse than before. She was desperate, but in her hour of need, she finally knew to whom she must come.
Our pro-life movement is like
that woman. We have hemorrhaged for 29 years, accepting one compromise after
another, until there is barely anything left of the principle that drives us
onward. We have sought every imaginable solution, from the witch doctors of
politics to the medicine men of academe. But have we crawled, on bended knee,
with furrowed brow and broken heart to the One who can heal our every sore,
restore our unity in the blood of his suffering, and wipe away every tear?
Judie Brown is President of
the American Life League.