How Bush Can be BOTH Pro-Life and Pro-Woman • AfterAbortion.org

By David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

“What is your position on abortion?” Since she already knew his answer, Barbara Walters’ voice echoed tones of both pity and glee. Governor George W. Bush was about to be exposed as an enemy of “choice.”

“I’m pro-life,” Bush answered. Then silence.

Walters allowed the conversation to hang for a few uncomfortable seconds. Bush gazed at her with a disarming, friendly confidence, reassuring her and millions of viewers that he had no more to say on this divisive issue. While he wanted the votes of pro-lifers and agreed in some vague way with that high moral vision, he had no particular agenda he would pursue against abortion.

In that moment of silence, the champion of compassionate conservatism blew it. Not only did he fail to inspire the confidence of pro-lifers, but worse, he failed to bridge the “gender gap.” He failed to attract the respect and support of the vast majority of Americans who dislike abortion but are more concerned about protecting and helping women.

Rather than downplay the abortion issue, Bush could have used Walters’ question as an opportunity to demonstrate his sincere concern and compassion for women. Consider, for example, how any portion of the following answer would have broadened Bush’s base of support among pro-lifers, the middle majority, and even among women who have had abortions:

I’m pro-life and I’m also pro-woman. I understand the pressures that drive women to undergo abortions, often in violation of their own moral and maternal beliefs. In many cases, women are being pressured into unwanted abortions by their boyfriends, parents, social workers, or doctors. This is a grave injustice to women. I will support programs that help women avoid unwanted, unnecessary, and dangerous abortions.

We also need to address the emotional pain and grief of women and men who have lost a child to abortion. Blame and finger-pointing are simply wrong. What is needed is an attitude of understanding and charity. We need to be witnesses of God’s mercy.

Faced with tough enough circumstances, perhaps any of us would cave in to the pressure to abort, even if we knew it was the wrong thing to do. I’m not going to throw stones at people who have made this tragic mistake. Instead, I will support the many new private ministries that provide post-abortion counseling and healing.

I’m also deeply concerned about all the emotional and physical damage abortion is inflicting on American women. A recent government study in Finland has shown that the suicide rate goes up seven fold after an abortion. The same study found that the risk of dying, from all causes, is three and a half times higher for women who have had an abortion compared to women who carry to term.

Other recent studies show that abortion is associated with a five-fold higher rate of subsequent substance abuse, as well as higher rates of psychiatric care, suicide attempts, pre- and post-term deliveries, and even breast cancer. I sincerely believe abortion is causing far more harm to American women than most people realize.

Eleven years ago, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop recommended a major government-funded study to definitively investigate abortion complications. This study was blocked by the Democratically-controlled congress. I think it’s time we finally funded such a study to find out how big this problem really is.

I am also deeply disturbed by the fact that many politicians, like Vice President Gore, seem to be more interested in protecting the abortion industry than they are in protecting women. Many Democrats have consistently opposed laws that would ensure that women are fully informed about all of abortion’s potential risks. They have opposed laws that would ensure that parents know when a 28-year-old man is taking their 14-year-old daughter out of state to undergo a potentially dangerous abortion. And they have also opposed laws that would make it easier to hold abortionists liable for the injuries they inflict on women. Can’t we at least agree to protect women?”

Sadly, some people see abortion as a tool for population control. Many even support international aid for population control programs that include forced abortions. But I ask, how can a politician who tolerates forced abortions call himself pro-choice?

I don’t think that way. I’m not willing to sacrifice the rights and welfare of women for the sake of population control. I’m not willing to reduce the welfare rolls by letting abortion clinic counselors deceive poor women into believing that their lives will be better if they simply go along with an abortion. It’s not true.

I believe God has intertwined the welfare of women and their children. If we help one, we help both. On the other hand, if we hurt one, we hurt both. That’s why abortion hurts women–emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. One can’t hurt a woman’s children without hurting her.

A far better alternative is to help both her and her child. That’s what problem pregnancy centers are doing around the country: befriending women and giving them the support, encouragement and resources that make it easier to bring an unplanned baby into the world and to experience the joy of that new life.

Under my administration, we will constantly endeavor to help both women and their children. We will not sacrifice either. Instead of seeking federal funding for abortion, I will support funding for alternatives to abortion, research on abortion complications, and support for programs that promote post-abortion healing.

Wow! What a breath of fresh air! If Bush had filled that pregnant moment of silence with such an answer, listeners would have been immediately convinced of both his compassion for women and his commitment to unborn children.

“I’m pro-life,” without elaboration, is simply a label, a half-formed, aborted statement of one’s vision. On the other hand, by articulating a message that is faithfully both pro-life and pro-woman, Bush could simultaneously (1) bridge the gender gap, (2) reassure the middle majority that his heart’s desire is to reduce abortion rates in a way that will truly help women, and (3) wipe the smug smiles off the faces of abortion supporters.

An abridged version of this article appeared in the August 12, 2000 issue of World magazine under the title, “An Aborted Vision.”

Related Articles

Leave a Reply Cancel reply