Wanda Franz, Ph.D.
Bush vs. Kerry
My fellow Americans, this is the most important election of our lifetime.
---John Kerry, accepting the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Boston, 7/29/04
Pro-lifers can't agree with John Kerry on much, but we certainly can agree with the above assessment.
It's very straightforward.
If President George W. Bush wins re-election, this will happen: Pro-life legislation will continue to be signed into law, pro-life executive orders will be issued, pro-abortion legislation (should it ever make it out of Congress) will be vetoed, and the nominees for judicial vacancies will be jurists who respect the constitutional division of powers. And the "culture of life" will advance.
If John Kerry wins the presidency, the opposite will happen: Pro-life legislation will be vetoed; pro-abortion legislation will be advanced; pro-abortion executive orders will be issued; and an activist, out-of-control judiciary will grow in power - - free to reorder social policy by judicial dictate. And the constitutional and cultural crises would immeasurably deepen.
President Bush's position and record on the right-to-life are the exact opposite to Kerry's pro-abortion stance.
* President Bush opposes the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. Kerry enthusiastically supports the decision.
* During his first week in office, President Bush reinstated President Reagan's Mexico City Policy that denies tax funding to groups promoting abortion overseas. In the primary debates, Kerry promised to "reverse the Mexico City policy" (2/26/04).
* President Bush opposes the use of your tax dollars for abortion. John Kerry is for it.
* President Bush supports legislation to prevent the taking of minors across state lines for secret abortions behind the parents' backs. John Kerry opposes the legislation.
* When President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, he recalled that "the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world." In contrast, Kerry voted six times against the law.
* President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act ("Laci and Conner's Law") which establishes that when an unborn child is injured or killed in a violent federal crime, the assailant may be charged with a second offense against the unborn child. John Kerry voted against this law, complaining that "this bill would clearly impact a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy" and that "legislation granting a fetus the same legal status in all stages of development as a human being is not the appropriate response."
* President Bush signed into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, stating, "This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive - - including an infant who survives an abortion procedure - - is considered a person under federal law. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights."
* President Bush opposes the cloning of embryos and killing them for stem cell research. John Kerry is for it - - so much so that he even mentioned it briefly in his Democratic National Convention acceptance speech, which skated around most controversial social issues and never addressed his unbending support for abortion.
* In his acceptance speech at the Republican national Convention in New York City (9/2/04), President Bush said, "Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child.... And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law." Kerry and the majority of Senate Democrats oppose the appointment of judges who want to adhere to the actual words of the Constitution - - which nowhere mentions a right to abortion.
The election of Bill Clinton to the presidency was a serious setback for the right-to-life cause, but the election of John Kerry would be worse. Although he was eight years in office, Bill Clinton had only two Supreme Court vacancies to fill. Now, however, so many Supreme Court justices are of advanced age that the next president could potentially "remake" the Court for years to come.
During the Democratic primaries Kerry drew attention to the matter in one of his speeches (10/3/03):
"By the end of the next President's term, six of the current members of the [Supreme] Court will be over 70 years of age. The average age of retirement over the past century has been 71 - - and so we are likely in for an unprecedented wave of retirements. It is entirely possible that whoever is elected next November will have the power to appoint a new majority of the members of the Supreme Court."
And whom would Kerry appoint? "As president, I will only appoint Supreme Court Justices who will uphold a woman's right to choose" (3/8/04).
When NARAL gave Kerry a "100%" score and endorsed him for the presidency, it recognized his 19-year-long pro-abortion voting record and his commitment to pack the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary with pro-abortion judicial activists. That's why NARAL and Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups are spending millions of dollars to elect John Kerry. Unlike many other Kerry supporters, they are not just "against Bush"; they are enthusiastically for their Kerry-Edwards "dream team."
The pro-abortion lobby is certainly going to outspend the pro-lifers. The question is: will pro-lifers outwork and out-organize the pro-abortionists and educate the public about the extreme pro-abortion positions of the Kerry-Edwards team and the national leadership of the Democratic Party? Will pro-lifers succeed in educating the public about the threat posed by activist judges appointed to life tenure by a potential President Kerry? Will pro-lifers make the necessary sacrificial commitment in time and money and effort to advance the right-to-life cause? Will pro-lifers stay focused no matter what the polls say?
Will you speak up and work for the right-to-life cause?