Get E-Mail Updates

Is George W. Bush Pro-Life? Is Any Politician?

100205-george-w-bushFormer President George W. Bush receives a pro-life award this weekend from Legatus, an organization of Catholic business professionals. The group cites his administration's opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, an executive order barring federal funds from international family planning groups that offer abortions, and the appointment of "pro-life" Supreme Court justices. The honor raises an essential question that should challenge both political parties and underscores the limits of labels: What does it mean to be pro-life?

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

For some, that question is answered simply by evoking opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. This landmark ruling has defined a generation of political polarization and fueled bitter culture wars that reward the shrillest voices. A singular focus on abortion as the only pro-life issue has also severely narrowed our national discourse about moral values in the public square.

While the former president spoke eloquently about the sacred dignity of life, as governor of Texas his state led the nation in executions. His presidency is remembered for a legacy that often undermined lofty rhetorical appeals to human dignity. Preemptive war, torture, a reckless disregard for the environment, and economic policies that left the poor farther behind even as the wealthy grew more prosperous is not a proud record in defense of life. It also fails to honor the broad spectrum of Catholic social teaching, which stresses a consistent ethic of life often referred to as a "seamless garment," because one life issue can't be easily separated from another. Catholic teaching has a rich and expansive vision that recognizes seeking peace and caring for the poor, the unborn, the immigrant, and our environment -- "promoting the common good in all its forms" in the words of Pope Benedict XVI; are all integral. Catholicism is not a single-issue faith, and no political party has a monopoly on moral values.

When considering efforts to reduce abortions, pro-life and pro-choice labels often obscure more than enlighten. Americans want bipartisan efforts to help end the abortion stalemate. A 2008 poll from Public Religion Research found that 81 percent of Catholics and 83 percent of all voters want elected officials to back policies that help reduce abortions by working together to prevent unintended pregnancies, expand adoption opportunities, and increase social supports for vulnerable women. In Congress, this holistic agenda is reflected in the Pregnant Women Support Act, sponsored by Sen. Robert Casey Jr., as well as the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, a bill co-sponsored by pro-life Rep. Tim Ryan and pro-choice Rep. Rosa DeLauro.

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 with quality health care.

The current debate over health-care reform demonstrates the false choice between "pro-life" or "social justice" advocacy. Ensuring that women and families have access to quality health care can help make abortions less likely and save thousands of lives. The Senate health-care bill, for example, includes significant supports for pregnant women endorsed by pro-life and pro-choice lawmakers. The abortion rate for women living in poverty is more than four times higher than for those earning 300 percent above the poverty line. At a time of economic crisis, any serious effort to prevent abortions must find comprehensive solutions to broader socioeconomic challenges.

A new generation must decide. We can stay mired in stale battles of the past and cling to easy labels or chart a course that honors human life at every stage. I would be the first to applaud an award given to anyone who helps us achieve that elusive victory.

John Gehring is Director of Communications for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: SamHamilton

02-08-2010 @ 4:42pm

They don't claim they're pro-life. They are pro-life, under how that term is defined in the American political lexicon. As I said, if you want to try and redefine that term to mean something else, that's fine. But don't criticize them for using a term as it's used in our society and then redefine the term and blame them for incorrectly using it.

It would be as if you told me you're a vegetarian because you don't eat meat, and I said "No you're not, because in my mind a vegetarian doesn't just abstain from eating animal meat, he/she also abstains from eating coconut meat as well."

by: andils

02-09-2010 @ 5:01pm

Sorry, John. We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't applaud the death of anyone. Ever.

by: JohnH54

02-05-2010 @ 5:24pm

I think the death penalty is appropriate in some circumstances. That's the only point I was trying to make.

If Bush was recognized as pro-life because he allowed murderers to be executed, I would not have a problem with it. I would, in fact, applaud it.

And to the person above, I expressed my opinion, I did not bash anyone. How does that violate the code of conduct? Is it because you disagree strongly with my position?

by: JohnH54

02-09-2010 @ 5:22pm

I understand. But who said I applaud it? I approve of it. I do think it is necessary.

by: ckgmail

02-08-2010 @ 8:20pm

Patricia, I think you and I are largely on the same page. It is, however, something of an overstatement to claim that Texas executed a completely innocent man due to the incompetence of the arson investigation. It is true that severe questions have been raised re: that investigation, and that Governor Perry has pretty shamelessly engaged in a cover-up of same.

I applaud your last paragraph, "How many innocent lives. . .?" I sense you could be an ally in the cause of reform of the criminal justice system. I invite you to visit a couple of other websites. "Grits for Breakfast" focuses on CJ reform specifically in Texas. Friends of Justice is a non-profit that arose out of a severe injustice perpetrated by the Texas CJ system in my home town of Tulia, Texas. I invite you to their website at http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com
Charles Kiker, Tulia, Texas

by: JaneinWNY

02-08-2010 @ 8:36pm

SamH: "It would be as if you told me you're a vegetarian because you don't eat meat, and I said "No you're not, because in my mind a vegetarian doesn't just abstain from eating animal meat, he/she also abstains from eating coconut meat as well.""

No. It's as though you told me you're a vegetarian, and when I pointed out that you were eating beef, you told me that in your definition of vegetarian, pork was meat but beef wasn't.

This is the second time on this thread that you have made the statement that a group of people could say that "life" means whatever they say it means. Your position is more accurately described as "anti-abortion" or "pro-fetal-life" or "pro-birth".

Jane

by: Patricia

02-08-2010 @ 9:01pm

ck - in my "defense" in the possible overstatement, I did clearly say "...it APPEARS that..." :).

I will take a look at Grits for Breakfast, thanks.

by: andils

02-10-2010 @ 12:42pm

John, Quoted from you above:

"If Bush was recognized as pro-life because he allowed murderers to be executed, I would not have a problem with it. I would, in fact, applaud it."

Does that not say you "applaud" execution of murders??

by: Patricia

02-08-2010 @ 9:09pm

No, BECAUSE they claim to be Catholic, and BECAUSE their "pro-life" stance apparently is limited to only pro-birth instead of being in accord with the (so-called seamless garment) official teaching of the Catholic church, they are NOT, in the eyes of the Catholic church, pro-life.

I am not talking about the American political lexicon (which also defines anything to the left of the far-right point of the political spectrum as "socialist"), which is not always accurate or useful. I am talking about a Catholic group and a Catholic church teaching. Sorry if that was unclear.

by: laurenosborne

02-05-2010 @ 2:33pm

Thank you for this. Great thoughts. Also, the first link in the first paragraph directs to a Page not found. Just wanted to let you know.

by: JohnH54

02-10-2010 @ 2:14pm

I don't celebrate it, but I do support it. I do applaud a politician who has
the decency to do the right thing. The application of the death penalty
actually prevents murders. As reported in USAToday (
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials...) and
elsewhere:

"A growing body of research suggests that ending the death penalty would
result in more murder victims. Studies released over the past several years
by economists from Emory University, the University of Colorado, Clemson
University, State University of New York, Western Illinois University,
University of Houston and the University of Chicago, among others, found
that for each murderer executed, five to 18 murders are prevented."

Don't we want fewer murders?

by: JohnH54

02-05-2010 @ 2:40pm

It is precisely because his state led in executions that I would recognize him for recognizing the sacred dignity of life.

by: John Mulholland

02-05-2010 @ 8:13pm

You do realize that the man is no longer the President, right?

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 8:13pm

It was the "precisely because his State led in executions" part. That's different from simply stating your opinion as you just did here. I found it inflammatory and unhelpful.

Especially in light of the fact that it appears that the current Governor of "his State" recently executed a completely innocent person due to the incompetence and bias of the arson investigators assigned to the case, and that current Governor of "his State" has actively and ruthlessly sought to prevent that information from becoming public knowledge.

How many innocent lives may be taken in the quest to ensure that all guilty lives are ended? I find nothing to applaud in that.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-05-2010 @ 2:48pm

Although I largely agree, I find your writing as dismissive of the implicit meaning and perspective of those that are, for instance, granting this award to G Bush.

Although I believe their usage of "pro-life" is restrictive and narrow, I don't think you get to a "seamless" usage without valuing their meaning. You want "life" to be used in a broad way. They want "life" to be used in a fundamental way.

Amidst all the issues of human life--there is something unique that happens at the "boundaries of life"--when we 'create' anew--or choose to 'end' life. These are unique markers of our relationship to human life and to God. They are not all that matters. But to critique a prioritized focus on unborn life as ignoring a seamless teaching on life is not fair. And being dismissive of that segment of the church that might have a unique assignment to give focus on that slice of life because they do not express all of your concerns is to denegrate the full range of Christ's purposes

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 8:18pm

I didn't think it was bashing President Bush - that section I thought was a comparison of the actions of the President in light of the teaching of the Catholic Church, since it was a self-identified Catholic organization that bestowed the honor. It was an accurate description of the Church's teaching regarding human life, and I experienced it more as pointing out the Legatus members having a narrower focus than the Church teaches. I think it could reasonably be argued that if the teaching were adhered to as a whole, the award would seem misplaced.

by: andils

02-05-2010 @ 2:49pm

Whaaaat? That makes no sense, John.

by: uberVU - social comments

02-05-2010 @ 4:55pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by LaurenOs: Is George W. Bush Pro-Life? Is Any Politician? - http://blog.sojo.net/2010/02/05/is-george-w-bush-pro-life-is-any-politic... a good read...

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 8:22pm

But, according to Catholic Church teaching, this group, who claims they are both pro-life and Catholic, is not in full accord. As a Catholic, I have a problem with pro-life groups who pick choose to treat the official seamless garment teaching as a pick-and-choose, mix-and-match ensemble.

by: squeaky

02-05-2010 @ 8:26pm

"Former President George W. Bush receives a pro-life award this weekend from Legatus, an organization of Catholic business professionals. "

This weekend, as in tomorrow. This is a current topic.

by: SpareChange

02-05-2010 @ 3:08pm

John, I appologize, in advance, if I have missed one of your prior blogs on all of Obama's yes/no votes (or sometimes his "present" vote) on abortion issues.

By the way, you forgot to add how many people he "intentionally" let die in New Orleans...or how his policies resulted in the earthquake in Haiti...or why it's raining outside my office today instead of snowing.

It's a good sign that things aren't going so well in the Polls for "O"...time to bash Bush again!

by: LaurenOs.

02-05-2010 @ 3:36pm

SpareChange, wouldn't it be best to express our differences in a bit more constructive way? I'm not on here to bash anyone and I come here with the belief that the bloggers and hopefully those who comment aren't here to bash either, just express their thoughts/ideas/values. I'm open to hear your thoughts on this specific article, though.

by: jcb123

02-05-2010 @ 3:48pm

Are we really still bashing Bush? Really?? He has absolutely NO SAY in any current policy whatsoever yet the left continues to think that criticizing him is somehow productive to our current situation. I'm no fan of Bush but enough already. If you want to focus on "life issues" that could actually influence future policy, address the current administrations positions: (not ending Iraq war, increasing Afghan war, increasing nukes, not closing Gitmo, promoting abortion rights more than any modern president)

by: squeaky

02-05-2010 @ 3:49pm

Wow. Just. Wow.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 3:56pm

If this discussion is not going to descend to the level that the gay discussion has, how about we stick to disagreeing on the issue as letjusticerolldown does below, instead of, as in SpareChange above, and JohnH54 below, violate Code of Conduct items #1, 2, and 3?

Can we at least TRY to have a civil discussion where we enunciate our beliefs without distorting or demonizing those of others? And, Yes, that means me, too :)!

by: SamHamilton

02-05-2010 @ 3:56pm

In the American political lexicon "pro-life" means opposition to abortion and support for laws that restrict access to it to one degree or another. There's nothing wrong with trying to redefine it to mean something more broad. But it makes absolutely zero sense to criticize a group for commending President Bush for his commitment to the pro-life cause when you're using a completely different definition of the term. Saying "he's not pro-life because he wouldn't increase money for SCHIP as much as I wanted" makes no sense because being pro-life, for better or for worse, doesn't have anything to do with financial support for poor kids.

I don't know anything about this Catholic group, but for all I know they deeply oppose the wars and Bush's funding priorities for the poor. But there still would be nothing wrong with honoring his commitment to the pro-life cause.

by: SamHamilton

02-05-2010 @ 4:05pm

I think there are policymakers and average Americans on the pro-life side who would be willing to compromise and support the initiatives advocated by Carol Keehan, Robert Casey, Tim Ryan, and Rosa DeLauro. My question is though, would the above mentioned individuals be willing to compromise with the pro-life side? Would they be willing to accept some limits on access to abortion?

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 4:16pm

I think it would be helpful to expand the definition of "pro-life" to include those who believe that there are other, better, more effective paths to respecting life than the repeal of Roe V Wade. Simply writing off those who focus on the areas they believe would work, rather than the repeal of this law as "pro-abortion" is not fair or helpful.

Women of means have always been able to travel to States where abortion was legal, and if Roe V Wade is repealed, they will still be able to do so. It is the poorest, least capable, least prepared women, who lack support, sustenance and encouragement, who will bear the brunt of simply focusing on repeal of Roe V Wade.

I believe we should do everything we can, short of criminalization, to encourage and support women who find themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances. John outlines some of those methods in his article. I believe we should place more limitations on abortions than we have now. But I don't believe we should criminalize abortion again. I am not willing to return to back alley butchery, when I believe there are other, more effective, more humane ways to assist women bringing life into this world, and ALSO caring for those lives after they are born.

President Bush talked the pro-life talk, but his policies removing assistance from needy women and children and in support of the death penalty prove in my mind that he didn't walk the pro-life walk in a consistent manner.

The group that honored him has a narrow focus and definition of pro-life, and they have a right to give President Bush an award if they believe he fulfills their mission (just as the Nobel Committee had a right to award their prize to President Obama if they wished). But, as a Catholic, I believe they are not reflecting adherence to our Church teaching regarding respect for life (the seamless garment approach of respect for life from beginning to natural end). You can't be Catholic and support capital punishment, either.

by: SpareChange

02-05-2010 @ 4:35pm

I could take up more space with a reply, but jcb123 has stated it quite eloquently. First I will say that I am no fan of GW...but the point is that he is no longer in office. Second, if John wanted to talk strictly about abortion he should have done that...but he used his platform to revisit the tired arguement that bush/cheney are the root of all evil. (Preemptive war, torture, a reckless disregard for the environment and economic policies that left the poor farther behind even as the wealthy grew more prosperous is not a proud record in defense of life.)

However, I encourage him (and others at sojo) to keep that arguement going...it certainly worked in Virginia and Massachusetts.

by: Kevin Morris

02-06-2010 @ 1:48am

I can't understand why pro-lifers can still support politicians that say they are pro-life and then do nothing to try and change abortion laws.

by: SamHamilton

02-09-2010 @ 3:22am

No Jane. Because it's Gehring and others who are trying to redefine "pro-life", not this Catholic group. Again, I don't have a problem with trying to redefine the term to something broader than unborn babies, but don't beat up on this group for using the term as it's commonly used in our society.

And I accept all those monikers. I am anti-abortion, pro-fetal life and pro-birth. If that's my position, is yours pro-abortion, anti-fetal life and anti-birth?

by: BlueDeacon

02-17-2010 @ 2:16am

You keep repeating this, but you've yet to provide examples of why you
think it's true.

Actually, it's obvious to me.

I've also seen very few ads about affirmative action. That doesn't mean
that the people who say they support it don't really care about it.

It's not a political issue that so many people fight about -- in fact, no one
runs a campaign on it.

What makes you think that people who say they want Roe v. Wade overturned
don't actually want it overturned or don't believe that both the born and
unborn are entitled to a right to life? You can't expect me to agree with you
if you just keep stating something over and over again without anything to
back it up.

Given present reality, the onus is on you, not me, to prove that it is. I've
already mentioned in this thread that James Dobson threatened to run for
president some years back because he didn't feel that the GOP wasn't moving
fast enough on that and other issues.

by: SamHamilton

02-16-2010 @ 10:14pm

The reality is that most conservatives and Republicans, primarily secular, couldn't care less about the issue itself.

You keep repeating this, but you've yet to provide examples of why you think it's true.

Did you ever notice just how few campaign ads are run on abortion? I've seen only two in my entire life.
Yes, I've noticed. I've also seen very few ads about affirmative action. That doesn't mean that the people who say they support it don't really care about it.

And as for believing the principle that "all human life, whether born or unborn, deserves equal protection under the law" -- give me a break. If they did they wouldn't act politically the way they do, and even if they do.

Again, another statement of opinion without any evidence to back it up. What makes you think that people who say they want Roe v. Wade overturned don't actually want it overturned or don't believe that both the born and unborn are entitled to a right to life? You can't expect me to agree with you if you just keep stating something over and over again without anything to back it up.

by: BlueDeacon

02-15-2010 @ 1:15am

The reality is that most conservatives and Republicans, primarily secular,
couldn't care less about the issue itself. Did you ever notice just how few
campaign ads are run on abortion? I've seen only two in my entire life. And
as for believing the principle that "all human life, whether born or unborn,
deserves equal protection under the law" -- give me a break. If they did they
wouldn't act politically the way they do, and even if they do.

by: SamHamilton

02-14-2010 @ 4:24am

I don't think you realize how offensive your comments are to the millions of Republicans and conservatives who've worked to end or curtail legal abortion in this country. Here's the principle: All human life, whether born or unborn, deserves equal protection under the law. There is nothing inconsistent or unprincipled about this.

Your contention that Republicans or conservatives don't actually want Roe v. Wade overturned remains unsubstantiated.

by: BlueDeacon

02-13-2010 @ 12:46pm

Not if you're focused on being "consistently pro-life," which is the subject of this thread. The opposition to Bush's tax cuts were were at least based on consistent principles; you can't say that about abortion (or at least the way it's dealt with on a political level).

by: SamHamilton

02-12-2010 @ 10:29pm

You go off on tangents about Bush's tax cuts because we're talking about human life? Huh? That doesn't make any sense.

by: JohnH54

02-05-2010 @ 5:24pm

I think the death penalty is appropriate in some circumstances. That's the only point I was trying to make.

If Bush was recognized as pro-life because he allowed murderers to be executed, I would not have a problem with it. I would, in fact, applaud it.

And to the person above, I expressed my opinion, I did not bash anyone. How does that violate the code of conduct? Is it because you disagree strongly with my position?

by: BlueDeacon

02-12-2010 @ 6:33pm

At some point, however, some people want the issue solved, not just trotted out like a Trojan Horse during election time. James Dobson threatened to run for president some years ago because he felt the Republican Party wasn't moving fast enough of "cultural issues."

by: BlueDeacon

02-11-2010 @ 10:59pm

Because we're talking about human life, which I take seriously.

by: SamHamilton

02-11-2010 @ 10:49pm

Why do you go off on tangents like this instead of addressing the point I made? Tax cuts were an example. I could have used anything (wars, labor laws, deregulation, etc). My point is that political parties use issues for political purposes all the time. It doesn't mean they also wouldn't like to change the underlying policy. Am I right or wrong?

by: BlueDeacon

02-11-2010 @ 10:23pm

Bush's tax cuts -- and that goes for any conservative who does the same --
were in themselves political and have nothing to do with "liberals." Strike
that -- part of the MO was to remove any funding from the "other side" (Newt
Gingrich basically said as such in 1995).

by: SamHamilton

02-11-2010 @ 5:48pm

deleted. Double post.

by: SamHamilton

02-11-2010 @ 5:48pm

Of course the conservative movement has used the abortion issue for political purposes. Just as liberals have used Bush's tax cuts for political purposes. But using an issue for political purposes does not mean they don't actually want to see things changed. It'd be ridiculous not to use the issue of abortion and Roe v. Wade for political purposes as long as the ruling stands. And it's not like if it were overturned the issue of abortion would just go away anyway. An enterprising Republican would find a way to use abortion, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, as a "wedge issue".

by: andils

02-09-2010 @ 5:01pm

Sorry, John. We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't applaud the death of anyone. Ever.

by: BlueDeacon

02-11-2010 @ 4:28pm

Oh, I agree with ckgmail completely. The conservative movement hijacked the abortion issue in the late 1970s for political purposes and has raised a ton of money in the process -- because it's easier to be against something negative than to be for something positive. Consider that the Christian Coalition was at its peak when Bill Clinton was president but began falling apart when GWB was in the White House.l

by: JohnH54

02-09-2010 @ 5:22pm

I understand. But who said I applaud it? I approve of it. I do think it is necessary.

by: andils

02-10-2010 @ 12:42pm

John, Quoted from you above:

"If Bush was recognized as pro-life because he allowed murderers to be executed, I would not have a problem with it. I would, in fact, applaud it."

Does that not say you "applaud" execution of murders??

by: ckgmail

02-06-2010 @ 7:17pm

The Republicans do not want Roe v. Wade repealed. That would remove a major wedge issue for them.

by: ckgmail

02-06-2010 @ 7:19pm

There are already real limits on access to abortion.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: laurenosborne

02-05-2010 @ 2:33pm

Thank you for this. Great thoughts. Also, the first link in the first paragraph directs to a Page not found. Just wanted to let you know.

by: laurenosborne

02-05-2010 @ 2:33pm

Thank you for this. Great thoughts. Also, the first link in the first paragraph directs to a Page not found. Just wanted to let you know.

by: JohnH54

02-05-2010 @ 2:40pm

It is precisely because his state led in executions that I would recognize him for recognizing the sacred dignity of life.

by: JohnH54

02-05-2010 @ 2:40pm

It is precisely because his state led in executions that I would recognize him for recognizing the sacred dignity of life.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-05-2010 @ 2:48pm

Although I largely agree, I find your writing as dismissive of the implicit meaning and perspective of those that are, for instance, granting this award to G Bush.

Although I believe their usage of "pro-life" is restrictive and narrow, I don't think you get to a "seamless" usage without valuing their meaning. You want "life" to be used in a broad way. They want "life" to be used in a fundamental way.

Amidst all the issues of human life--there is something unique that happens at the "boundaries of life"--when we 'create' anew--or choose to 'end' life. These are unique markers of our relationship to human life and to God. They are not all that matters. But to critique a prioritized focus on unborn life as ignoring a seamless teaching on life is not fair. And being dismissive of that segment of the church that might have a unique assignment to give focus on that slice of life because they do not express all of your concerns is to denegrate the full range of Christ's purposes

by: letjusticerolldown

02-05-2010 @ 2:48pm

Although I largely agree, I find your writing as dismissive of the implicit meaning and perspective of those that are, for instance, granting this award to G Bush.

Although I believe their usage of "pro-life" is restrictive and narrow, I don't think you get to a "seamless" usage without valuing their meaning. You want "life" to be used in a broad way. They want "life" to be used in a fundamental way.

Amidst all the issues of human life--there is something unique that happens at the "boundaries of life"--when we 'create' anew--or choose to 'end' life. These are unique markers of our relationship to human life and to God. They are not all that matters. But to critique a prioritized focus on unborn life as ignoring a seamless teaching on life is not fair. And being dismissive of that segment of the church that might have a unique assignment to give focus on that slice of life because they do not express all of your concerns is to denegrate the full range of Christ's purposes

by: andils

02-05-2010 @ 2:49pm

Whaaaat? That makes no sense, John.

by: andils

02-05-2010 @ 2:49pm

Whaaaat? That makes no sense, John.

by: SpareChange

02-05-2010 @ 3:08pm

John, I appologize, in advance, if I have missed one of your prior blogs on all of Obama's yes/no votes (or sometimes his "present" vote) on abortion issues.

By the way, you forgot to add how many people he "intentionally" let die in New Orleans...or how his policies resulted in the earthquake in Haiti...or why it's raining outside my office today instead of snowing.

It's a good sign that things aren't going so well in the Polls for "O"...time to bash Bush again!

by: SpareChange

02-05-2010 @ 3:08pm

John, I appologize, in advance, if I have missed one of your prior blogs on all of Obama's yes/no votes (or sometimes his "present" vote) on abortion issues.

By the way, you forgot to add how many people he "intentionally" let die in New Orleans...or how his policies resulted in the earthquake in Haiti...or why it's raining outside my office today instead of snowing.

It's a good sign that things aren't going so well in the Polls for "O"...time to bash Bush again!

by: LaurenOs.

02-05-2010 @ 3:36pm

SpareChange, wouldn't it be best to express our differences in a bit more constructive way? I'm not on here to bash anyone and I come here with the belief that the bloggers and hopefully those who comment aren't here to bash either, just express their thoughts/ideas/values. I'm open to hear your thoughts on this specific article, though.

by: LaurenOs.

02-05-2010 @ 3:36pm

SpareChange, wouldn't it be best to express our differences in a bit more constructive way? I'm not on here to bash anyone and I come here with the belief that the bloggers and hopefully those who comment aren't here to bash either, just express their thoughts/ideas/values. I'm open to hear your thoughts on this specific article, though.

by: jcb123

02-05-2010 @ 3:48pm

Are we really still bashing Bush? Really?? He has absolutely NO SAY in any current policy whatsoever yet the left continues to think that criticizing him is somehow productive to our current situation. I'm no fan of Bush but enough already. If you want to focus on "life issues" that could actually influence future policy, address the current administrations positions: (not ending Iraq war, increasing Afghan war, increasing nukes, not closing Gitmo, promoting abortion rights more than any modern president)

by: jcb123

02-05-2010 @ 3:48pm

Are we really still bashing Bush? Really?? He has absolutely NO SAY in any current policy whatsoever yet the left continues to think that criticizing him is somehow productive to our current situation. I'm no fan of Bush but enough already. If you want to focus on "life issues" that could actually influence future policy, address the current administrations positions: (not ending Iraq war, increasing Afghan war, increasing nukes, not closing Gitmo, promoting abortion rights more than any modern president)

by: squeaky

02-05-2010 @ 3:49pm

Wow. Just. Wow.

by: squeaky

02-05-2010 @ 3:49pm

Wow. Just. Wow.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 3:56pm

If this discussion is not going to descend to the level that the gay discussion has, how about we stick to disagreeing on the issue as letjusticerolldown does below, instead of, as in SpareChange above, and JohnH54 below, violate Code of Conduct items #1, 2, and 3?

Can we at least TRY to have a civil discussion where we enunciate our beliefs without distorting or demonizing those of others? And, Yes, that means me, too :)!

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 3:56pm

If this discussion is not going to descend to the level that the gay discussion has, how about we stick to disagreeing on the issue as letjusticerolldown does below, instead of, as in SpareChange above, and JohnH54 below, violate Code of Conduct items #1, 2, and 3?

Can we at least TRY to have a civil discussion where we enunciate our beliefs without distorting or demonizing those of others? And, Yes, that means me, too :)!

by: SamHamilton

02-05-2010 @ 3:56pm

In the American political lexicon "pro-life" means opposition to abortion and support for laws that restrict access to it to one degree or another. There's nothing wrong with trying to redefine it to mean something more broad. But it makes absolutely zero sense to criticize a group for commending President Bush for his commitment to the pro-life cause when you're using a completely different definition of the term. Saying "he's not pro-life because he wouldn't increase money for SCHIP as much as I wanted" makes no sense because being pro-life, for better or for worse, doesn't have anything to do with financial support for poor kids.

I don't know anything about this Catholic group, but for all I know they deeply oppose the wars and Bush's funding priorities for the poor. But there still would be nothing wrong with honoring his commitment to the pro-life cause.

by: SamHamilton

02-05-2010 @ 3:56pm

In the American political lexicon "pro-life" means opposition to abortion and support for laws that restrict access to it to one degree or another. There's nothing wrong with trying to redefine it to mean something more broad. But it makes absolutely zero sense to criticize a group for commending President Bush for his commitment to the pro-life cause when you're using a completely different definition of the term. Saying "he's not pro-life because he wouldn't increase money for SCHIP as much as I wanted" makes no sense because being pro-life, for better or for worse, doesn't have anything to do with financial support for poor kids.

I don't know anything about this Catholic group, but for all I know they deeply oppose the wars and Bush's funding priorities for the poor. But there still would be nothing wrong with honoring his commitment to the pro-life cause.

by: SamHamilton

02-05-2010 @ 4:05pm

I think there are policymakers and average Americans on the pro-life side who would be willing to compromise and support the initiatives advocated by Carol Keehan, Robert Casey, Tim Ryan, and Rosa DeLauro. My question is though, would the above mentioned individuals be willing to compromise with the pro-life side? Would they be willing to accept some limits on access to abortion?

by: SamHamilton

02-05-2010 @ 4:05pm

I think there are policymakers and average Americans on the pro-life side who would be willing to compromise and support the initiatives advocated by Carol Keehan, Robert Casey, Tim Ryan, and Rosa DeLauro. My question is though, would the above mentioned individuals be willing to compromise with the pro-life side? Would they be willing to accept some limits on access to abortion?

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 4:16pm

I think it would be helpful to expand the definition of "pro-life" to include those who believe that there are other, better, more effective paths to respecting life than the repeal of Roe V Wade. Simply writing off those who focus on the areas they believe would work, rather than the repeal of this law as "pro-abortion" is not fair or helpful.

Women of means have always been able to travel to States where abortion was legal, and if Roe V Wade is repealed, they will still be able to do so. It is the poorest, least capable, least prepared women, who lack support, sustenance and encouragement, who will bear the brunt of simply focusing on repeal of Roe V Wade.

I believe we should do everything we can, short of criminalization, to encourage and support women who find themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances. John outlines some of those methods in his article. I believe we should place more limitations on abortions than we have now. But I don't believe we should criminalize abortion again. I am not willing to return to back alley butchery, when I believe there are other, more effective, more humane ways to assist women bringing life into this world, and ALSO caring for those lives after they are born.

President Bush talked the pro-life talk, but his policies removing assistance from needy women and children and in support of the death penalty prove in my mind that he didn't walk the pro-life walk in a consistent manner.

The group that honored him has a narrow focus and definition of pro-life, and they have a right to give President Bush an award if they believe he fulfills their mission (just as the Nobel Committee had a right to award their prize to President Obama if they wished). But, as a Catholic, I believe they are not reflecting adherence to our Church teaching regarding respect for life (the seamless garment approach of respect for life from beginning to natural end). You can't be Catholic and support capital punishment, either.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 4:16pm

I think it would be helpful to expand the definition of "pro-life" to include those who believe that there are other, better, more effective paths to respecting life than the repeal of Roe V Wade. Simply writing off those who focus on the areas they believe would work, rather than the repeal of this law as "pro-abortion" is not fair or helpful.

Women of means have always been able to travel to States where abortion was legal, and if Roe V Wade is repealed, they will still be able to do so. It is the poorest, least capable, least prepared women, who lack support, sustenance and encouragement, who will bear the brunt of simply focusing on repeal of Roe V Wade.

I believe we should do everything we can, short of criminalization, to encourage and support women who find themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances. John outlines some of those methods in his article. I believe we should place more limitations on abortions than we have now. But I don't believe we should criminalize abortion again. I am not willing to return to back alley butchery, when I believe there are other, more effective, more humane ways to assist women bringing life into this world, and ALSO caring for those lives after they are born.

President Bush talked the pro-life talk, but his policies removing assistance from needy women and children and in support of the death penalty prove in my mind that he didn't walk the pro-life walk in a consistent manner.

The group that honored him has a narrow focus and definition of pro-life, and they have a right to give President Bush an award if they believe he fulfills their mission (just as the Nobel Committee had a right to award their prize to President Obama if they wished). But, as a Catholic, I believe they are not reflecting adherence to our Church teaching regarding respect for life (the seamless garment approach of respect for life from beginning to natural end). You can't be Catholic and support capital punishment, either.

by: SpareChange

02-05-2010 @ 4:35pm

I could take up more space with a reply, but jcb123 has stated it quite eloquently. First I will say that I am no fan of GW...but the point is that he is no longer in office. Second, if John wanted to talk strictly about abortion he should have done that...but he used his platform to revisit the tired arguement that bush/cheney are the root of all evil. (Preemptive war, torture, a reckless disregard for the environment and economic policies that left the poor farther behind even as the wealthy grew more prosperous is not a proud record in defense of life.)

However, I encourage him (and others at sojo) to keep that arguement going...it certainly worked in Virginia and Massachusetts.

by: SpareChange

02-05-2010 @ 4:35pm

I could take up more space with a reply, but jcb123 has stated it quite eloquently. First I will say that I am no fan of GW...but the point is that he is no longer in office. Second, if John wanted to talk strictly about abortion he should have done that...but he used his platform to revisit the tired arguement that bush/cheney are the root of all evil. (Preemptive war, torture, a reckless disregard for the environment and economic policies that left the poor farther behind even as the wealthy grew more prosperous is not a proud record in defense of life.)

However, I encourage him (and others at sojo) to keep that arguement going...it certainly worked in Virginia and Massachusetts.

by: uberVU - social comments

02-05-2010 @ 4:55pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by LaurenOs: Is George W. Bush Pro-Life? Is Any Politician? - http://blog.sojo.net/2010/02/05/is-george-w-bush-pro-life-is-any-politic... a good read...

by: JohnH54

02-05-2010 @ 5:24pm

I think the death penalty is appropriate in some circumstances. That's the only point I was trying to make.

If Bush was recognized as pro-life because he allowed murderers to be executed, I would not have a problem with it. I would, in fact, applaud it.

And to the person above, I expressed my opinion, I did not bash anyone. How does that violate the code of conduct? Is it because you disagree strongly with my position?

by: JohnH54

02-05-2010 @ 5:24pm

I think the death penalty is appropriate in some circumstances. That's the only point I was trying to make.

If Bush was recognized as pro-life because he allowed murderers to be executed, I would not have a problem with it. I would, in fact, applaud it.

And to the person above, I expressed my opinion, I did not bash anyone. How does that violate the code of conduct? Is it because you disagree strongly with my position?

by: John Mulholland

02-05-2010 @ 8:13pm

You do realize that the man is no longer the President, right?

by: John Mulholland

02-05-2010 @ 8:13pm

You do realize that the man is no longer the President, right?

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 8:13pm

It was the "precisely because his State led in executions" part. That's different from simply stating your opinion as you just did here. I found it inflammatory and unhelpful.

Especially in light of the fact that it appears that the current Governor of "his State" recently executed a completely innocent person due to the incompetence and bias of the arson investigators assigned to the case, and that current Governor of "his State" has actively and ruthlessly sought to prevent that information from becoming public knowledge.

How many innocent lives may be taken in the quest to ensure that all guilty lives are ended? I find nothing to applaud in that.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 8:13pm

It was the "precisely because his State led in executions" part. That's different from simply stating your opinion as you just did here. I found it inflammatory and unhelpful.

Especially in light of the fact that it appears that the current Governor of "his State" recently executed a completely innocent person due to the incompetence and bias of the arson investigators assigned to the case, and that current Governor of "his State" has actively and ruthlessly sought to prevent that information from becoming public knowledge.

How many innocent lives may be taken in the quest to ensure that all guilty lives are ended? I find nothing to applaud in that.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 8:18pm

I didn't think it was bashing President Bush - that section I thought was a comparison of the actions of the President in light of the teaching of the Catholic Church, since it was a self-identified Catholic organization that bestowed the honor. It was an accurate description of the Church's teaching regarding human life, and I experienced it more as pointing out the Legatus members having a narrower focus than the Church teaches. I think it could reasonably be argued that if the teaching were adhered to as a whole, the award would seem misplaced.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 8:18pm

I didn't think it was bashing President Bush - that section I thought was a comparison of the actions of the President in light of the teaching of the Catholic Church, since it was a self-identified Catholic organization that bestowed the honor. It was an accurate description of the Church's teaching regarding human life, and I experienced it more as pointing out the Legatus members having a narrower focus than the Church teaches. I think it could reasonably be argued that if the teaching were adhered to as a whole, the award would seem misplaced.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 8:22pm

But, according to Catholic Church teaching, this group, who claims they are both pro-life and Catholic, is not in full accord. As a Catholic, I have a problem with pro-life groups who pick choose to treat the official seamless garment teaching as a pick-and-choose, mix-and-match ensemble.

by: Patricia

02-05-2010 @ 8:22pm

But, according to Catholic Church teaching, this group, who claims they are both pro-life and Catholic, is not in full accord. As a Catholic, I have a problem with pro-life groups who pick choose to treat the official seamless garment teaching as a pick-and-choose, mix-and-match ensemble.

by: squeaky

02-05-2010 @ 8:26pm

"Former President George W. Bush receives a pro-life award this weekend from Legatus, an organization of Catholic business professionals. "

This weekend, as in tomorrow. This is a current topic.

by: squeaky

02-05-2010 @ 8:26pm

"Former President George W. Bush receives a pro-life award this weekend from Legatus, an organization of Catholic business professionals. "

This weekend, as in tomorrow. This is a current topic.

by: Kevin Morris

02-06-2010 @ 1:48am

I can't understand why pro-lifers can still support politicians that say they are pro-life and then do nothing to try and change abortion laws.

by: Kevin Morris

02-06-2010 @ 1:48am

I can't understand why pro-lifers can still support politicians that say they are pro-life and then do nothing to try and change abortion laws.

by: ckgmail

02-06-2010 @ 7:17pm

The Republicans do not want Roe v. Wade repealed. That would remove a major wedge issue for them.

by: ckgmail

02-06-2010 @ 7:17pm

The Republicans do not want Roe v. Wade repealed. That would remove a major wedge issue for them.

by: ckgmail

02-06-2010 @ 7:19pm

There are already real limits on access to abortion.

by: ckgmail

02-06-2010 @ 7:19pm

There are already real limits on access to abortion.

by: Jesusistheway

02-06-2010 @ 11:32pm

Really? Like what? Many states treat abortion as nothing more than a surgical procedure. Just a lump of clay.

by: Jesusistheway

02-06-2010 @ 11:32pm

Really? Like what? Many states treat abortion as nothing more than a surgical procedure. Just a lump of clay.

by: ckgmail

02-07-2010 @ 12:31pm

Check PA for example. Check TX for example.

by: ckgmail

02-07-2010 @ 12:31pm

Check PA for example. Check TX for example.

by: SamHamilton

02-08-2010 @ 4:20pm

This article isn't talking about state initiatives; it's talking about federal action. As am I. A ban on the partial birth abortion procedure doesn't fall under the category of a "real" limit in my mind.