George Bush’s Record (PRO LIFE)

Human Life Review ^ | 7/30/04

[GailA]

II. George Bush’s Record

Just as Truman became president in a political, social and legal context that shaped and limited what he could accomplish on black civil rights, George W. Bush took office in a context which limits what he can achieve in the struggle to establish the civil rights of the unborn. He became president under the cloud of the 2000 election recount and the Supreme Court’s resolution in Bush v. Gore. (Sidewalks in Chicago still have black stamps proclaiming “Hail to the Thief.”) Only with his decisive action in response to the attacks of September 11th, and the subsequent success of the 2002 midterm elections, did Bush cease being an “accidental president” in the minds of many Americans. As Al Gore’s campaign chairman Tony Coelho acknowledged after the November, 2002 elections, “They [Bush and Rove] rolled the dice, they won, and now Bush has a huge mandate. It’s not about 9/11 anymore. He is the legitimate President.”11

Bush also inherited a closely divided Congress. Four months into his first year push on domestic issues, Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords dropped his Republican affiliation and became an “Independent,” giving the Senate and its committee chairmanships to pro-abortion Democrats. (The June 4, 2001 Newsweek ran a flattering article titled, “Mr. Jeffords Blows Up Washington.”) Bush did more than most previous presidents had done to try to change the composition of the Senate at mid-term. The president’s party typically loses seats in these elections. But Bush committed considerable time and resources to Republican Senate candidates running in close states. It was a risky strategy, but it paid off big. The November, 2002 election was the first one since 1934 (FDR’s first term) in which a president picked up seats in both the House and Senate (two seats in the Senate, five in the House). Historic though they may have been, the gains weren’t enough to end the Senate battles over Bush’s more conservative judicial nominations.

In George Bush’s three years and a half years as President, sixteen pro-life actions and policy positions stand out, only three of which he accomplished through Congress. These were the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in August, 2002, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in November, 2003, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in April, 2004. (A number of other important federal bills remain stalled in Congress. The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA), for example, passed the House 229-189 on September 25, 2002 but remains tied up in the Senate.)

On assuming office, Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy prohibiting the use of U.S. tax dollars by foreign non-governmental organizations that promote abortion. Other initiatives include resuming the practice of certifying that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) supports a coercive abortion program in China, making UNFPA ineligible for U.S. foreign aid funds. His administration also made unborn children eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP).12 This allows states to treat the unborn child as an independent individual eligible for federally funded prenatal care.

President Bush’s first significant public action on a life issue came in a nationwide speech on August 9, 2001, when he declared that he would not permit federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research that relies on future destruction of human embryos. At the same time, Bush announced that he was creating the President’s Council on Bioethics, to be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass. (One forgets that right up until September 10, 2001, the New York Times and other papers were regularly running front-page stories on the embryonic stem-cell debate.)

The president also endorsed a federal ban on all human cloning, declaring it to be one of his two pro-life goals (along with getting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban bill passed) in his State of the Union address in January, 2003. Bush directed the U.S. delegation at the United Nations to take a strong stand in support of an international ban that would cover so called therapeutic, or research cloning, as well as reproductive cloning. On December 9, 2003, the U.N. postponed the decision for a year. As reported in the New York Times, Richard Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., said the United States “was happy to go along with the one-year consensus but would not alter its stance, ‘We will continue to work for a total ban.’” This is the way the British Ambassador to the U.N.—a supporter of cloning for experimental purposes—framed the U.S. position: “It is clear there is no consensus in respect to therapeutic cloning research, but by ignoring this fact and pressing for action to ban all cloning, supporters of the Costa Rican resolution [i.e., the U.S.] have effectively destroyed the possibility of action on the important area on which we are all agreed—a ban on reproductive cloning.” To accept the British position supporting “therapeutic cloning” however, would mean not only permitting human embryos to be created simply for the purpose of experimentation, but mandating their destruction as well.

In a related action spurred by the widening stem-cell debate, a presidential advisory committee adopted the policy that human beings at the embryonic stage will be considered as “Human Subjects” for purposes of applying rules regulating human experimentation.13

Regarding another life and death matter, in 2001 Attorney General John Ashcroft interpreted the Controlled Substances Act as forbidding the use of federally controlled drugs for assisted suicides. His directive was promptly challenged by the Governor of Oregon, the only state where assisted suicide is legal. The case, Oregon v. Ashcroft, was recently decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which, in a 2-1 ruling, concluded that Ashcroft had exceeded his legal authority.

Finally, in October, 2003, Bush publicly supported his brother Jeb when the Florida governor ordered that Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube be reinserted. That decade-old case remains in litigation, as Ms. Schiavo’s parents and siblings continue to fight her husband’s attempt to end her life.

President Bush has also taken action on several broader social policies that might not be considered sanctity of life issues, traditionally speaking, but should be seen as helping to build a culture of life. These include an increase in the child-tax credit from $500 to $1000, a reduction in the “marriage penalty,” faith-based initiatives created by executive order (when Congress would not pass his entire bill), the new marriage assistance program in the Department of Health & Human Services, and Bush’s declared goal in his 2004 State of the Union address to double federal funding for abstinence programs.

[GailA]

this is a very long article

[sgtbono2002]

George Bush has never made any secret of the fact he is anti-abortion, He hasnt flip-flopped in any way with it such as saying he believes birth begins at conception , but its ok to murder that baby. Bush policies are pretty simple to understand , you dont have to pick them out of the rhetoric and excuses and flip-flops. Simply put , he has convictions, he doesnt change them according to the audience.

[My2Cents]

John Kerry, on the other hand, says that he believes life begins at conception, but favors abortion nevertheless. Think about this for a moment: The radical pro-aborts don't believe that what is being destroyed in abortion qualifies as being "human;" but John Kerry does. This guy is a bigger monster than the most radical pro-abortionist!

[lasereye]

People who claim support for the unborn as one of their priorities and don't think Bush deserves their vote are an eggroll short of a combination plate.

[votelife]

bttt

[GailA]

sKerry votes 100% pro-abortion. He has no problem with killing the innocent unborn. BUT he has many problems riding the earth of the scum who commit murders..like obl, mumia, and thousands of others sitting on death row.

[votelife]

bttt