So Much for the Children: Bush Policies Cause More Abortions

Published on October 19, 2004 By blogic In Politics

The following was written by Glen Stassen, a professor of Christian Ethics:

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.

[snip]

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).

[snip]

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.

[snip]

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.

George Bush's policies are not pro-life, and he's managed to reverse the decades of progress that had been made here. As is true so often about him, Bush's rhetoric appears to show little awareness of the reality around him, and he seems unwilling to see how his poorly his policies play out.

Comments (Page 1)

JillUser

on Oct 19, 2004

This is the second time today I will say this....bull flop! This statement is as founded as saying 9/11 caused more pregnancies which caused more abortions. Hey, people started to think the end was near. Wake up call, we could be bombed into oblivion tomorrow so why not screw our brains out today. Got pregnant, better abort because who wants to bring a baby into a world of terrorism.

This sounds crazy maybe but it makes just as much sense. Scientifically speaking most abortions don't occur from two consenting parents making a decision because they found out their baby was going to require a lot of expensive health care. Most abortions are from people who have unplanned pregnancies that will interfere with the way they want to live their lives.

Also, if you want to quote catholic bishops, you should be willing to take what the catholic church has to say about Kerry to heart also. I personally don't give a flying flip what the catholic church has to say about either candidate.

d3adz0mbie

on Oct 19, 2004

Nice try Blogic, you offer NO PROOF that President Bush has caused this reversal in abortion rates. You just sling mud.

Perhaps people don't want to raise children in a post 09/11 world?
Perhaps the fear of Kerry being elected has caused the abortion rate to rise? After all, I have as much proof of this as what youve offered us.

Here's my situation: I adopted knowing full well that after 8 years of a democrat chances were good that the country would once again have a chance at a sane leader more concerned about the citizens than getting blowjobs from citizens. My son has medical issues that require special needs, yet under Bush we have prospered, despite having twins 2 years after adoption. Now my wife are considering adopting another child; a proposition made possible by 3 1/2 years of economic recovery in our household.

Come back when you have a real arguement Blogic, this is beneath you.

Myrrander

on Oct 19, 2004

bull flop!

At least I was ready for it this time...

This post says abortion rates went up. It also says that George Bush was president when it happened. It makes some half-hearted references to health care, but I still don't see a strong correlation between my first two statements.

I could do something similiar: I had 5 teeth filled during the time Bill Clinton was president. I have had no teeth filled since George Bush has become president. Therefore, Bill Clinton must have promoted tooth decay! The logic just doesn't work out for me here blogic -- but I'm still a fan!

JillUser

on Oct 19, 2004

Myr, I had the same thing happen with my teeth! I think we are on to something with the tooth decay theory. Now we have to decide if the conspiracy was that Clinton promoted decay or if Bush solved the decay problem

Myrrander

on Oct 19, 2004

It's a good question, Jill. I must retire to my Fortress of Solitude™ to contemplate this.

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

Woops, I was wrong.

The "Hurricanes caused by Bush" article wasn't next. Would make just as much sense, though. I can just picture it - blogic must just be foaming at the mouth he's working so feverishly to push this garbage out.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Dr Guy

on Oct 19, 2004

First, I dont buy the premise. Second, the logic is severly flawed, and wrong. third, the increase is due to the scare tactics of the democrats, and if that is caused by a good man being president, then evil is caused by good men doing good.

Finally:

[quote}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.

that is pure unadulterated horse shit. My Nephew,my god daughters son is DS. He would have been aborted under thier plan, and kerry's plan. He is not smart. But he does know how to love. And everytime I see him, he has more love than my own 4 children for his uncle.

Go ahead, abort love. You are only aborting your next generation. We will have love, and since we are not aborting our love, we will soon outnumber you, and can get rid of that abomination of a law, and get true life for innocents.

dabe

on Oct 19, 2004

I think this was an excellent post. Thanks, Blogic. It amazes me how people are comparing apples and oranges, or shall I say babies and teeth, when there is no correlation in their arguments. How distressing. I do agree with the author. Bush's policies have not helped anyone through anything. As far as the causal relationship between his policies and the increase in abortion rates, there is nothing that would cause me to not believe that Bush's policies aren't to blame. He states that he's against abortion because it kills human life. Then, he turns around and doesn't support any program that would assist in the prevention of pregnancies. Except of course, his misguided faith based initiatives. And, I venture to guess that support has nothing to do with health care or education or family planning of any kind. I'm sure you've heard the expression, "Prolifers state that life begins at conception, but ends at birth." Bush's policies certainly uphold that premise. Particularly when you factor in a nonsensical war, resulting in the deaths of thousands and thousands. Blogic, you get an insightful from me.

Myrrander

on Oct 19, 2004

no correlation in their arguments

Which was exactly my #&!!% point! There was NO CORRELATION IN THE ARGUMENTS. Sweet mother of GOD some of you liberals make even ME ill sometimes.

CrispE

on Oct 19, 2004

blogic:

Abortion, which is a deeply private issue is influenced more by poverty than anything else IMO. Rising standards of living in the 90's meant people were more secure with raising a child and having a home. We know in the Bush Presidency that more people have slipped below the poverty line and the lack of jobs have forced workers to take lower pay rates and raises than in the 1990's also.

The same can be said of crime, malnutrition, and homelessness. I work in 2 different food pantries in my area and while the area is relatively better off than many we still have seen a 15 to 20% rise in these areas in the past 4 years. That's anecdotal evidence to be sure but nevertheless, true.

blogic

on Oct 19, 2004

Yes, George Bush's policies have contributed both to the unprecendented slowness of the economic recovery, and the weakening of policies that help the needy.

I'm surprised at conservatives' unwillingness to see the logical connection between the societal safety net provided by government and a pregnant woman's likelihood to get an abortion. It's precisely the same party that opposes choice that is making it harder for a poor woman to raise a child. How is that compassionate?

This reminds me of a similar contradiction: opponents of choice are now trying to make more difficult to get the contraceptive pill. How does that make any sense? As far as I can tell, these people care less about making abortion rare than they care about legislating their views on sex, and cutting assistance to young mothers.

drmiler

on Oct 19, 2004

Reply #11 By: blogic - 10/19/2004 6:47:39 PM
I'm surprised at people's unwillingness to see the connection between the societal safety net provided by government and a pregnant woman's likelihood to get an abortion. It's precisely the same party that opposes choice that is making it harder for a poor woman to raise a child. How is that compassionate?

This reminds me of a similar contradiction: opponents of choice are now trying to make more difficult to get the contraceptive pill. How does that make any sense? As far as I can tell, these people care less about making abortion rare than they care about legislating their views on sex, and cutting assistance to young mothers.

I'm sorry dude but I have to agree with everyone else. This is an emense load of bull puckey!

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

There is not one shred of evidence for a cause and effect relationship between Bush's policies and the incidence of abortion. Period. Stupid argument completely unsupported by facts.

It is equally true that the orbit of Mars has been bringing it steadily closer to earth for the past 4 years. During those four years we've seen 52,000 more abortions than would have been expected for this closure of orbits.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Myrrander

on Oct 19, 2004

Daiwa, if you elect John Kerry to the office of President, he'll make sure that the United States leads the world in putting Mars back into its rightful orbit. Bush has been too distracted with Iraq to pay attention to Mars, but with Kerry in the White House, we won't be having those red planet blues any longer.

I agree, there's not a lot of supporting detail in your above post, blogic...

Peaches

on Oct 19, 2004

I think it's pretty obvious that if a woman feels it will be hard to raise a child, she is more likely to have an abortion. Clearly, the government safety net has been significantly weakened under Bush, and this would definitely lead to more women having abortions. Great post.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!