Hi Perry, Your assessment makes sense but does not really address the article itself. In reality, abortion under Bush has increased instead of decreased. This is not just due to economic factors but from the policies or blocked policies put through by the White House. Bush may be against abortion (and he is but only in certain situations; in some he is actually for abortion) but instead of abortions becoming rarer they are becoming more commonplace. If one goes into this election thinking that voting for Bush is going to lower abortions one would be dead wrong. They will continue to increase unless the economy is turned around and a plan to decrease unwanted pregnancies is put into effect. When I threw out the line a few months back that a vote for Bush is a vote for killing babies, other than the obvious shock value, there is a case to be made that I am right. The point is that if abortions went up under Bush versus the prior president we need to be asking a number of serious questions beginning with 'why?'.
I would also point out that this was a statistician using abortion and economic numbers to make his case. Putting a statistic on a 'moral climate' would be difficult if not impossible. I do agree that changing the moral climate regarding abortion is important. Changing the legal climate is most likely not possible as the article states. What I am attempting to do with this article is to get people to actually take a look at an issue without the partisan glasses on. Here is a Christian statistician from a highly respected seminary who is pro-life. When he takes a good look at the stats, at the economics, at supply-side reproductive health, at the partial birth ban, and at the criminalization of abortion he comes to a different conclusion to that of most uninformed people. We can at least listen as you did, or toss the article away with flippant comments like others have. Jonathan Hughes -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 10:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Kerry and Abortion Jonathan, While the numbers may indicate that abortion has increased under Bush's administration, we must look at the moral climate of the 90's as well as the economic climate of the 90's. (We will ignore the fact that economic policy has a "lag" time from implementaqtion to effectiveness, and that an administration usually lives under the effects of the previous administration's economic policies.) If women choose to kill their unborn babies simply because they "can't afford" to have one, then the "moral" climate of abortion on demand perpetuated during the nineties has only encouraged women to kill when they "can't afford" the child. Besides, it is easier (and saves face) to say "I could not afford a child"rather than to say "I did not want a baby so chose to kill my unborn child". For long-term effect, I'll support the position of changing the legal and moral climates regarding abortion. Then the economy will cease to be a convenient excuse for murder. Perry >From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [TruthTalk] Kerry and Abortion >Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:42:00 -0500 > >I made some posts a number of weeks back on Kerry, Bush and abortion. >The following article explains what I was attempting to say quite well. > > > >Pro-Life...Pro-Kerry? > >Why anti-abortion voters might want to take another look > >by Joshua Holland, Contributor >10.29.04 > >Sometimes in an election year if you peel the rhetoric away from the >candidates' real-life policies, you can get some surprising results. >Such is the case with abortion: if you are truly "pro-life," you should >vote for Senator Kerry. > >Because the fact is that regardless of what's said in stump speeches, >abortions in this country have skyrocketed under the Bush >administration after a steep and steady decline during the Clinton years. > >That insight comes from Dr. Glen Harold Stassen, a Christian ethicist >and statistician at the Fuller Theological Seminary who calls himself >"consistently pro-life." He studied data from the 1990s and from the >first three years of the Bush administration. During the 1990s, >abortions in the United States - under a pro-choice president who said >abortion should be safe, legal and rare - decreased by 17.4 percent. At >the end of Clinton's second term, abortions stood at a 24-year low. > >The four states that had abortion data for all three years under Mr. >Bush posted increases of 1.9, 3.2, 11.3 and 111 percent respectively >(that whopping 111 percent rise was in Colorado). Data for only two >years were available for another 12 states. Eight of them saw abortions >increase by an average of 14.6 percent and four saw declines averaging just 4.3 percent. >All told, if the trend of the 1990s had continued at the same rate >under the Bush administration, Dr. Stassen estimates that 52,000 fewer >abortions would have been performed in 2002. > >His analysis included the impact of the so-called 'partial birth' >abortion ban which, despite its value as rhetorical red meat for >certain constituents, restricted only a very small number of abortions. >You may believe what you wish about the controversial method itself, >but nobody denies that it was performed in less than one percent of all procedures. > >Dr. Stassen suggests that the rise in abortion is a result of economic >pressures under President Bush: > >Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite "inability to afford a child" >as >their primary reason. In the Bush presidency...average real incomes >decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to >match inflation. >With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed... > >In the 16 states [analyzed], there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the >year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, >marriages fall and abortion rises. > >Women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since >5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this >presidency, abortion increases. > >Supply and demand > >So if you're pro-life, you might re-think that 'single-issue' vote. And >while I don't disagree with Dr. Stassen, there is another, more direct >causal relationship here: the Bush administration has extended its >supply-side economic theories to reproductive health. They believe that >constraining the ability of providers to supply abortion will somehow >cause demand to drop. > >At the same time, their policies have attacked family planning, sex >education and condom distribution programs. These efforts - based >entirely on faith and not on sound public policy data - have caused the >demand for abortion services to increase. > >According to a detailed report by Planned Parenthood, the >administration has tried to strip contraceptive coverage from the >Federal Employee Benefit Plan and limited family planning programs >under Medicaid. President Bush blocked legislation that required >insurance companies to cover contraceptives if they covered other >prescription drugs; he's frozen funding for reproductive health >programs and tried to shift federal programs from comprehensive family >planning to promoting abstinence for unmarried adults of any age. >The >administration and its allies have attacked condom use, removed >information about condoms from government Web sites, and attacked the >birth control pill, IUDs and other forms of contraception as being >equivalent to abortion. > > >Now, you may believe as a matter of faith that limiting access to birth >control and advocating abstinence will make people stop having sex. But >an enormous amount of public policy research shows that comprehensive >family planning is far more effective in decreasing unwanted >pregnancies than abstinence-only programs. Decreasing unwanted >pregnancies leads to fewer abortions - it's that simple. > >And if you think that voting for Mr. Bush will lead to the >re-criminalization of abortion altogether - rendering that point moot - >think again. Banning the procedure outright would lead to electoral >disaster for the Republican Party. That may be why Ted Olsen, who as >the administration's Solicitor General argues its positions before the >Supreme Court, recently told C-Span that regardless of whether Roe v. >Wade was "good law," the principles that support it have been upheld in >dozens of subsequent cases before the court. He didn't see >criminalization as being possible. > >One final point: as a Senator, Mr. Kerry has never been in a position >to stop a single abortion from taking place. Not one. As Governor of >Texas, however, George W. Bush signed 152 death warrants with his own >hand. That's more than any other governor in the history of the United >States of America. > > >So ask yourself what these issues mean to you. If you enjoy talking >about them - and getting angry - then Mr. Bush is your man. He will >certainly speak of a 'culture of life' in a way that you'll embrace. >But if you are genuinely concerned about abortion, you might want to >consider voting for a candidate that will make them safe and rare. > This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sây rattachant contiennent de lâinformation confidentielle et privilÃgiÃe. Si vous nâÃtes pas le destinataire visÃ, s.v.p. en informer immÃdiatement son expÃditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dÃtruire toute copie (Ãlectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visà est interdite et peut Ãtre illÃgale. Merci de votre coopÃration relativement au message susmentionnÃ. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
