One of the supposed planks of the Republican Party is being pro-life* – as long as the unborn child is an American, that is. And as long as it’s politically expedient.
Recently they voted to ban federal funding for abortion. We’re supposed to be impressed by this vote.
Of course, this is after they dropped a bill that would ban elective abortion after the 20th week, according to the Heritage Foundation. So despite controlling both the House and the Senate, the Republicans dropped the bill because they didn’t think “they had the necessary votes.”
For those who find it so imperative that we elect Republicans so we can have a Republican-majority Congress and get pro-life legislation passed, I give you exhibit #4256.
One Republican is quoted as saying, they want to avoid “very contentious social issues.”
Some might be content with their vote on trying to stop federal funding for abortions. Just how “brave” is it for the party that is supposed to be pro-life to take a stand against taxpayer-funded abortions? That’s how skewed the situation is. It’s not about whether abortion should be legal or not. The debate is about whether people should be robbed in order to pay for someone else to have one.
This would have been like the abolitionist party in the 1850s – which never received more than two percent of the popular vote during a presidential election – refusing to push a bill while they control Congress that would require a slave to be freed when they turn 20; instead they push legislation prohibiting federal funding for the slave purchases because they wanted to avoid “contentious social issues.”
Somehow I doubt abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison or Lysander Spooner’s concerns about the institution would be sated.
The other hypocrisy, as my initial sentence points out, is that the term “pro-life” is a misnomer. What they are is anti-taxpayer-funded abortion, possibly anti-abortion. They are not pro-life, because when it comes to their stance on war they have no qualms voting in favor of unnecessary, immoral military interventions overseas that inevitable kill the unborn. They’re only pro-life in war when it comes to the lives of people wearing the right uniform and swearing allegiance to the right government.
We hear them say “every life is precious.” I agree. This also includes poor Third World people who have no say or control over their corrupt, brutal governments that become the object of U.S. government’s wrath.
There is no moral difference between a woman terminating an innocent life and a U.S. pilot participating in an airstrike terminating innocent life.
*For the record, I am unabashedly pro-life. Somehow, I’m also anti-war because war always involves the deaths of the unborn. Go figure.