ARTICLES

Stop Patting Bush on the Back

Is the War on Terrorism Pro-Life?

BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER

The sense of relief and even euphoria among pro-life activists was palpable after the re-election of President George W. Bush on November 2. The day after the election, LifeSiteNews.com quoted Carol Tobias, the political director of the U.S. National Right to Life Committee, saying, "we are absolutely delighted to have four more years with pro-life President Bush." Beverley LaHaye of Concerned Women for America was pleased -- "it was all in all quite an exciting night," she said -- but more cautious. Despite the Bush victory, pro-life people, said LaHaye, "have to redouble our efforts, and I believe that God has blessed us and given us another chance to honor Him and to do what is right for our families and our country. Now is not the time to relax and hope someone else does the hard work. Together we need to keep the pressure on congress and, yes, even on the president when necessary, to take the lead on the issues that really matter to us."

But if LaHaye was cautious, Judie Brown of the American Life League was downright wary. On November 3, Brown wrote that she could not "share in [pro-life] enthusiasm" over Bush's re-election. While Bush "defeated one of the most solidly pro-abortion candidates to ever seek the White House," said Brown, the president's "first term has been less than sterling in terms of total commitment to the pro-life effort." Brown said that during the next four years, "the status quo on abortion is going to be maintained, as will the ongoing public perception that we have a pro-life president." And even if the president should appoint a pro-life justice if a Supreme Court vacancy should occur, it will be of limited benefit. "Even in the unlikely event that Roe v Wade is overturned," said Brown, "the abysmal fact is that this would only return regulation of abortion to each state, which would do nothing to guarantee the protection of pre-born children."

Brown wrote that she feared a "malaise that will accompany Mr. Bush's re-election." This malaise, she said, "will eat away at the edges of the pro-life battle without generating a clear victory for the personhood of every innocent human being. The definition of what it means to be pro-life will take another hit. Due to decay from within, this could spell the end of what we have known as the 'pro-life movement.'"

The problem for Brown seems to be that that though "Mr. Bush is educable," he is not really pro-life. He has a lot to learn, said Brown, namely, "that all abortions are bad, not just 'partial-birth' abortions. He could learn there is no reason to excuse abortions in alleged cases of rape, incest, threat to the mother's life, or fetal deformity. He could pressure Congress to support personhood by passing the Right to Life Act." Every pro-life leader, said Brown, must "take whatever steps are needed to provide this education and cease patting Mr. Bush on the back until he adopts a true pro-life position."

California pro-life folks might share Judy Brown's doubt of Bush's pro-life commitment. During the 2002 gubernatorial primary, the president backed the thoroughly pro-abortion Richard Riordan for the Republican nomination against the (at least) nominally pro-life Bill Simon. During the 2003 recall election, the White House endorsed pro-abortion Arnold Schwarzenegger instead of pro-life Tom McClintock. In late October of this year, Schwarzenegger urged voters to approve Proposition 71, which dedicated $3 billion in state funds for fetal stem cell research, which requires the murder of the unborn. The measure, passed by voters on November 2, promises to make California the fetal stem-cell research center of the country.

Some outside the pro-life mainstream have questioned President Bush's pro-life commitment based on his prosecution of the current war. But Father Peter West of Priests for Life dismisses such criticisms. In a November 4 e-mail message to all and sundry, Father West rejoiced that among those who lost along with John Kerry are "those who believe there is moral equivalency between the unintentional killing of innocents in the war on terrorism and the direct killing of pre-born children by abortion. Terrorists pose a threat to innocent people. A war on terrorists is pro-life."

But is it? An article by Paul Likoudis appearing in the October 28 Wanderer, may lead one to question Father West's blithe assertion. In his article, "The Morality of Weapons Systems," Likoudis said that during the presidential campaign both abortion and the American military occupation of Iraq should be "pivotal issues;" "there ought to be a serious public discussion in the morality of weapons used in Iraq," said Likoudis.

Likoudis narrows in on the use by the United States of depleted uranium in its bombs. Though in October, after a six-year study, the Pentagon declared that the depleted uranium used in bombs was not radioactive or toxic enough to harm United States soldiers, many other researchers have disagreed. These researchers say the fine dust from depleted uranium, if ingested by humans, can lead not only to cancer but also birth defects and fetal and infant death. The dust can be blown for miles, affecting innocent civilians -- and not only for a time, for the radioactive effects of depleted uranium remain, practically forever.

And then there is the actual increased incidence of cancer and birth defects in Iraq and Afghanistan after the United States used depleted uranium munitions in those countries. According to September 30 Irish Times, a senior specialist at the Basra (Iraq) College of Medicine said that in the ten years following the 1991 Gulf War (in which depleted uranium first was used) "there was a 100 percent rise in child leukemia and a 242 percent increase in all cancers in the region. Birth defects are also much higher than normal. Malignancies and defects have also soared in Afghanistan since the 2001 U.S. war, but no statistics are available in that chaotic country." It is thought as well that malignancies in American veterans of the Gulf War and the 2003 war and birth defects among their children have resulted from exposure to depleted uranium.

Given the persistence of depleted uranium in the atmosphere, it may have devastating effects on the populations in the areas where it is used. If this is true, should not the use of depleted uranium be considered a pro-life issue? Likoudis quotes Dr. John Hittinger, a former instructor at the United States Air Force Academy and now professor of philosophy at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit. In using depleted uranium, said Hittinger, "we can't hide behind the doctrine of double-effect, or legalisms, and we need to face squarely the indiscriminate effect on Iraqi civilians. This has the beginnings of a genocidal effect, so serious questions need to be raised. Although this is not a deliberate, direct, planned attack on the unborn of Iraq, it is such a serious matter because we are attacking the sources of life in Iraqi men and women."

One can read the entire Wanderer story at http://thewandererpress.com/a10-28-2004.htm.

TOP