Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Mark Stricherz: "Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse"

Pro-life Democrat Mark Stricherz responds to those who claim that the Democrat Party's "abortion strategy" will actually reduce the so-called "need" and incidence of abortion:
... On its face, Gibson's claim is hard to believe: The party of NARAL, the National Abortion Federation, and NOW will reduce abortion more than the party of the National Right to Life Committee, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition? It is an implausible claim -- and the closer you look at it, a false one. The GOP's abortion strategy is better -- far better.

For one thing, the
Democratic Party platform continues to support the expansion of taxpayer-financed abortions. This is not idle talk. Democrats are serious about it. On President Clinton's first day in office, he issued an executive order overturning the Mexico City policy, which probihited U.S. dollars being spent on organizations that perform abortions or provide abortion counseling; the policy was not rescinded until 2001 when President Bush took office. In addition, President Clinton signed into law the expansion of funding of abortion through Medicaid. Obama has pledged to do the same things.

Government funding of abortion increases rather than decreases the abortion rate. As the
study commissioned by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good points out, which Gibson failed to mention, Medicaid funding of abortion is associated with an increase in the abortion rate by one-tenth.

For another thing, as
Rick Garnett notes, national Democrats oppose any real legal protections for unborn infants. This is a key point that both Gibson and the CACG study overlook. (It is also directly contrary to Catholic social thought. As the Catechism says, “From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”)

If Roe were overturned, dozens of states would do more than ban partial-birth abortion or enact parental consent laws; they would ban abortion in the "easy" cases -- economic and familial circumstance, psychological and emotional reasons, etc. Banning abortion in these cases would not only be possible;
more than three-fifths of Americans support banning abortion in the "easy" cases. It would also be desirable; more than 90 percent of abortions are performed for those reasons.

[Read the whole thing]
(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Case closed.

Labels: , , ,


At 9/17/2008 9:47 AM, Blogger Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

Case closed.

It would be "case closed" for Catholics who are taught by the Holy Father and the bishops to place a priority on the abortion issue, and for Catholics don't secretly -- and not so secretly -- support and applaud abortion.

But not for anyone else.


Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter for blogger