A good friend forwarded me these articles from the homeschoolers for Kerry email list. I don't usually get political on my blog but as it gets closer to election day I just can't help myself.
Food for thought for those who feel they can't support Kerry because of the abortion issue:
Pro-life? Look at the fruits
by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen
I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am
consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my
family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth
week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and
raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he
also is a blessing to us and to the world.
I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I
analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency.
There is no single source for this information - federal reports go
only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough
data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and
disturbing.
Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the
nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline
during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year,
mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher
Institute's studies).
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to
continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the
opposite happened.
I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through
2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's
increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3%
from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to
2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001
and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6%
average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).
Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion
rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s,
52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than
would have been expected before this change of direction.
How could this be? I see three contributing factors:
First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child
(Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three
years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had
there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current
administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years
the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less
income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.
Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable
mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless
usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages
in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased.
In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the
year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment
increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their
children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now
than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age
overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support
for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as
does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical
insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial
for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the
Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy
and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as
well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know
that every mother, father, and child needs public and family
support.
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not
separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow,
mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs,
child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word,
means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and
support for prospective mothers.
Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at
Fuller Theological Seminary, and the co-author of Kingdom Ethics:
Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Christianity Today's Book
of the Year in theology or ethics.
Voting Our Conscience, Not Our Religion
October 11, 2004
By MARK W. ROCHE
New York Times
South Bend, Ind. - For more than a century, from the wave of immigrants in the 19th century to the election of the first Catholic president in 1960, American Catholics overwhelmingly identified with the Democratic Party. In the past few decades, however, that allegiance has largely faded. Now Catholics are prototypical "swing voters": in 2000, they split almost evenly between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and recent polls show Mr. Bush ahead of Senator John Kerry, himself a Catholic, among white Catholics.
There are compelling reasons - cultural, socioeconomic and political - for this shift. But if Catholic voters honestly examine the issues of consequence in this election, they may find themselves returning to their Democratic roots in 2004.
The parties appeal to Catholics in different ways. The Republican Party opposes abortion and the destruction of embryos for stem-cell research, both positions in accord with Catholic doctrine. Also, Republican support of various faith-based initiatives, including school vouchers, tends to resonate with Catholic voters.
Members of the Democratic Party, meanwhile, are more likely to criticize the handling of the war in Iraq, to oppose capital punishment and to support universal heath care, environmental stewardship, a just welfare state and more equitable taxes. These stances are also in harmony with Catholic teachings, even if they may be less popular among individual Catholics.
When values come into conflict, it is useful to develop principles that help place those values in a hierarchy. One reasonable principle is that issues of life and death are more important than other issues. This seems to be the strategy of some Catholic and church leaders, who directly or indirectly support the Republican Party because of its unambiguous critique of abortion. Indeed, many Catholics seem to think that if they are truly religious, they must cast their ballots for Republicans.
This position has two problems. First, abortion is not the only life-and-death issue in this election. While the Republicans line up with the Catholic stance on abortion and stem-cell research, the Democrats are closer to the Catholic position on the death penalty, universal health care and environmental protection.
More important, given the most distinctive issue of the current election, Catholics who support President Bush must reckon with the Catholic doctrine of "just war." This doctrine stipulates that a war is just only if all possible alternative strategies have been pursued to their ultimate conclusion; the war is conducted in accordance with moral principles (for example, the avoidance of unnecessary civilian casualties and the treatment of prisoners with dignity); and the war leads to a more moral state of affairs than existed before it began. While Mr. Kerry, like many other Democrats, voted for the war, he has since objected to the way it was planned and waged.
Second, politics is the art of the possible. During the eight years of the Reagan presidency, the number of legal abortions increased by more than 5 percent; during the eight years of the Clinton presidency, the number dropped by 36 percent. The overall abortion rate (calculated as the number of abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44) was more or less stable during the Reagan years, but during the Clinton presidency it dropped by 11 percent.
There are many reasons for this shift. Yet surely the traditional Democratic concern with the social safety net makes it easier for pregnant women to make responsible decisions and for young life to flourish; among the most economically disadvantaged, abortion rates have always been and remain the highest. The world's lowest abortion rates are in Belgium and the Netherlands, where abortion is legal but where the welfare state is strong. Latin America, where almost all abortions are illegal, has one of the highest rates in the world.
None of this is to argue that abortion should be acceptable. History will judge our society's support of abortion in much the same way we view earlier generations' support of torture and slavery - it will be universally condemned. The moral condemnation of abortion, however, need not lead to the conclusion that criminal prosecution is the best way to limit the number of abortions. Those who view abortion as the most significant issue in this campaign may well want to supplement their abstract desire for moral rectitude with a more realistic focus on how best to ensure that fewer abortions take place.
In many ways, Catholic voters' growing political independence has led to a profusion of moral dilemmas: they often feel they must abandon one good for the sake of another. But while they may be dismayed at John Kerry's position on abortion and stem-cell research, they should be no less troubled by George W. Bush's stance on the death penalty, health care, the environment and just war. Given the recent history of higher rates of abortion with Republicans in the White House, along with the tradition of Democratic support of equitable taxes and greater integration into the world community, more Catholics may want to reaffirm their tradition of allegiance to the Democratic Party in 2004.
Mark W. Roche is dean of the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/opinion/11roche.html?ex=1098486602&ei=1&en=ee82ecb14c656457
Food for thought for those who feel they can't support Kerry because of the abortion issue:
Pro-life? Look at the fruits
by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen
I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am
consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my
family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth
week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and
raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he
also is a blessing to us and to the world.
I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I
analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency.
There is no single source for this information - federal reports go
only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough
data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and
disturbing.
Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the
nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline
during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year,
mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher
Institute's studies).
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to
continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the
opposite happened.
I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through
2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's
increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3%
from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to
2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001
and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6%
average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).
Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion
rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s,
52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than
would have been expected before this change of direction.
How could this be? I see three contributing factors:
First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child
(Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three
years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had
there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current
administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years
the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less
income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.
Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable
mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless
usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages
in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased.
In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the
year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment
increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their
children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now
than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age
overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support
for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as
does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical
insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial
for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the
Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy
and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as
well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know
that every mother, father, and child needs public and family
support.
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not
separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow,
mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs,
child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word,
means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and
support for prospective mothers.
Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at
Fuller Theological Seminary, and the co-author of Kingdom Ethics:
Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Christianity Today's Book
of the Year in theology or ethics.
Voting Our Conscience, Not Our Religion
October 11, 2004
By MARK W. ROCHE
New York Times
South Bend, Ind. - For more than a century, from the wave of immigrants in the 19th century to the election of the first Catholic president in 1960, American Catholics overwhelmingly identified with the Democratic Party. In the past few decades, however, that allegiance has largely faded. Now Catholics are prototypical "swing voters": in 2000, they split almost evenly between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and recent polls show Mr. Bush ahead of Senator John Kerry, himself a Catholic, among white Catholics.
There are compelling reasons - cultural, socioeconomic and political - for this shift. But if Catholic voters honestly examine the issues of consequence in this election, they may find themselves returning to their Democratic roots in 2004.
The parties appeal to Catholics in different ways. The Republican Party opposes abortion and the destruction of embryos for stem-cell research, both positions in accord with Catholic doctrine. Also, Republican support of various faith-based initiatives, including school vouchers, tends to resonate with Catholic voters.
Members of the Democratic Party, meanwhile, are more likely to criticize the handling of the war in Iraq, to oppose capital punishment and to support universal heath care, environmental stewardship, a just welfare state and more equitable taxes. These stances are also in harmony with Catholic teachings, even if they may be less popular among individual Catholics.
When values come into conflict, it is useful to develop principles that help place those values in a hierarchy. One reasonable principle is that issues of life and death are more important than other issues. This seems to be the strategy of some Catholic and church leaders, who directly or indirectly support the Republican Party because of its unambiguous critique of abortion. Indeed, many Catholics seem to think that if they are truly religious, they must cast their ballots for Republicans.
This position has two problems. First, abortion is not the only life-and-death issue in this election. While the Republicans line up with the Catholic stance on abortion and stem-cell research, the Democrats are closer to the Catholic position on the death penalty, universal health care and environmental protection.
More important, given the most distinctive issue of the current election, Catholics who support President Bush must reckon with the Catholic doctrine of "just war." This doctrine stipulates that a war is just only if all possible alternative strategies have been pursued to their ultimate conclusion; the war is conducted in accordance with moral principles (for example, the avoidance of unnecessary civilian casualties and the treatment of prisoners with dignity); and the war leads to a more moral state of affairs than existed before it began. While Mr. Kerry, like many other Democrats, voted for the war, he has since objected to the way it was planned and waged.
Second, politics is the art of the possible. During the eight years of the Reagan presidency, the number of legal abortions increased by more than 5 percent; during the eight years of the Clinton presidency, the number dropped by 36 percent. The overall abortion rate (calculated as the number of abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44) was more or less stable during the Reagan years, but during the Clinton presidency it dropped by 11 percent.
There are many reasons for this shift. Yet surely the traditional Democratic concern with the social safety net makes it easier for pregnant women to make responsible decisions and for young life to flourish; among the most economically disadvantaged, abortion rates have always been and remain the highest. The world's lowest abortion rates are in Belgium and the Netherlands, where abortion is legal but where the welfare state is strong. Latin America, where almost all abortions are illegal, has one of the highest rates in the world.
None of this is to argue that abortion should be acceptable. History will judge our society's support of abortion in much the same way we view earlier generations' support of torture and slavery - it will be universally condemned. The moral condemnation of abortion, however, need not lead to the conclusion that criminal prosecution is the best way to limit the number of abortions. Those who view abortion as the most significant issue in this campaign may well want to supplement their abstract desire for moral rectitude with a more realistic focus on how best to ensure that fewer abortions take place.
In many ways, Catholic voters' growing political independence has led to a profusion of moral dilemmas: they often feel they must abandon one good for the sake of another. But while they may be dismayed at John Kerry's position on abortion and stem-cell research, they should be no less troubled by George W. Bush's stance on the death penalty, health care, the environment and just war. Given the recent history of higher rates of abortion with Republicans in the White House, along with the tradition of Democratic support of equitable taxes and greater integration into the world community, more Catholics may want to reaffirm their tradition of allegiance to the Democratic Party in 2004.
Mark W. Roche is dean of the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/opinion/11roche.html?ex=1098486602&ei=1&en=ee82ecb14c656457
posted by KatyM @ 9:18 AM
1 Comments:
At 1:51 PM,
Kate said…
Thanks for the interesting articles. I remember reading a story about GWBush joking as he signed an order to send a Texan to his death when he was governor. I thought then, "wow, what a scary idiot". And now terrifying with so much power. I have never understood the inconsistency of being prolife on abortion but not on capital punishment. Unless of course it helps get your butt into the white house. (or governors mansion).
Post a Comment
<< Home