Pro-Life or Politically Correct?
November 8, 2000
Over the past twenty-one months, since March 22, 1999, we have commented repeatedly that something was wrong with the pro-life political barometer. Too soon, and without apology, we said, establishment pro-life organizations endorsed and toiled for the election of the Texas Governor, George W. Bush. Mr. Bush never stated his unequivocal belief that a person exists at conception and that there is never a reason to condone the murder of even one innocent human being.
We argued then, and insist even now, that pro-life leaders and organizational representatives or spokesmen should support a candidate who courageously defends human beings as persons without exception, without compromise, without apology. Two presidential candidates in this past election did take that position: Patrick J. Buchanan and Howard Phillips Did any establishment pro-life political or organizational operatives give either of these men a cloak of credibility? No! Why not? What happened? Did the barometric pressure cool down, or has this movement been heading that way - to Hell that is – for a long time now? To be pro-life means to accept the science: a human being begins at conception.
To be pro-life means to accept the philosophy: a human being is a person at fertilization. To be pro-life means to know that the act of direct abortion is a violent, criminal act of murder. To be pro-life is to acknowledge that the right to life is inalienable, endowed by God and precious, never to be violated for any reason.
Therefore, a pro-life politician should publicly expound each of the above facts without hesitation. None of these facts are based on belief or opinion polls. Each is objectively true and does not change due to realistic chances of acceptance in the public square The Truth never changes.
A pro-life politician should never fear that his solidarity with the smallest person, a single cell zygotic child, will cost him a vote; for as Pope John Paul II so eloquently reminds all men and women of good will (The Splendor of Truth, #52): “It is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil.” (Section 52)
Thus no pro-life politician should ever fear defending the Truth. What has he got to lose… either now or eternally? Every pro- life person knows that procured abortion is evil. It kills somebody. Tolerating such an evil is never permissible… not even in the world of electoral politics.
Every pro-life person knows that God is not capable of telling a lie; God says ‘Thou shalt not kill” and God’s word applies equally to all human beings in all walks of life… even when they are running for elective office, even when they are political incrementalists. God is not capable of telling a lie.
The man or woman who argues in favor of aborting certain children (rape, incest and life of the mother) is not committed to the principle of personhood. He or she does not believe that procured abortion kills people. If this person did believe that, he would never suggest that the act is acceptable in any circumstance.
So, when a pro-life official opined prior to the elections that voting for a person who has a chance of winning, even if he supports some child-killing, is morally permissible, we wonder what that means. For while we know that a person could vote for someone who favors some abortions, we ask whether such an action is wise. Here is why.
In a two man race, where one man (A) is so principled that he never heard of an abortion he did not like, and the other man (B) tolerates some abortions, it could be argued that one might vote for B even though he favors some abortions. Why? Because one would hope that B would not allow as much killing as A would. But in a race where candidates (C) and (D) publicly proclaim personhood principles, are you really doing the best thing for the babies if you choose (B) or are you joining the ranks of those who don’t mind a few abortions?
The current political environment is so polluted that our only hope of restoring total protection to all innocent human beings is to make a concerted effort to radically change it. But how do we change the situation if candidates C and D are ignored or discouraged or discredited merely because the polls say they have no chance at winning. When do we begin building a base for radical change if not now? What are we waiting for? Do we really want to protect all persons from conception or not? When is the right time if not now?
Further, the last time we checked, there is no thinking American who is obliged to vote in a way that violates his conscience. In fact, as Pope John Paul II teaches (Splendor of Truth, #64) “Freedom of conscience is never freedom ‘from’ the truth but always and only freedom ‘in’ the truth.” So voting for a man because someone pontificates that he is “the lesser of two evils” or that “he has the only reasonable chance of winning” is actually arguing that toleration of abortion is a pro-life political goal for the time being. Is that what we really believe? Should we hold that view?
Hasn’t twenty-seven years of such failed half-truth taught us anything? Don’t we know that politicians will always gravitate toward the weakest position and slither away from principle, especially when the allegedly pro-life tacticians tell them it is OK to do so? Cultural commentator Thomas Drolesky points out : “There is no salvation in partisan politics. The forum of electoral politics provides us with a vehicle by which we can speak to the primacy of the Divine positive law and the natural law over us men and our civil societies.
The more Catholics spin reality to fit the statists of the Democratic party or the careerists in the Republican Party will be the more the most pressing moral issue of the day continues to be subordinated to the interests of career politicians, who believe that we exist to enable them to win office as an end in and of itself.”
It is long past time to point out the faulty positioning of those who seek political power to the exclusion of absolute truth. God does not lie. It is time to surrender all the political sell- outs of the past and move into the era where pro-life principle is the only goal worthy of our effort.
Sadly, but truly, George W. Bush is not and was not pro-life. But neither are the people who promoted him. And frankly, it is clear that only by calling a spade a spade can we begin the process of restoring credibility to the political and legislative efforts to protect persons, from conception, and without exception, without apology and without compromise.
The betrayals of the past must end. Arguments in favor of flawed incrementalism must cease. Not because those who have promoted them for so long could have done better, but because they should! And now is a perfect time to start.
The wanton destruction of innocent persons must end – but it won’t end until we clean our own household and stop tolerating a little bit of abortion.
In closing, let us be perfectly clear. All the GW Bush apologists, take note. We have had it with the rhetoric, the moral relativism and the pragmatic situation ethics. The Truth is always the Truth and it does not change, not even in an election year. Do you believe that a person exists at conception? Do you oppose every single act that results in the death of a person, even when that person is a single cell in size? Do you condone abortion in some cases for the sake of political gain? Or do you wish to serve God and His law? God does not lie.